Filed: Apr. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1332 In re: THEODORE J. WILLIAMS Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:13-hc-02022-D) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore J. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Theodore J. Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1332 In re: THEODORE J. WILLIAMS Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus (No. 5:13-hc-02022-D) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore J. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Theodore J. Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus s..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1332
In re: THEODORE J. WILLIAMS
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
(No. 5:13-hc-02022-D)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore J. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodore J. Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking an order declaring him innocent of offenses to which he
pleaded guilty in state court and ordering the state court to
resentence him. We conclude that Williams is not entitled to
mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui,
333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further,
mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a
clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n,
860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Moreover, this court
does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against
state officials, Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty.,
411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), or to review final state
court orders. Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
The relief sought by Williams is not available by way
of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3
